Complaint taken on file: 19.01.2017                                                                                                                             Order delivered on: 23.09.2022

BEFORE THE HON´BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION, ARIYALUR

PRESENT:

Dr.V.Ramaraj M.L, P.hd: President

Mr.N.Balu B.A, B.L : Member - I

Mrs.V.Lavanya B.A., B.L : Member - II

Consumer Complaint (RBT) No. 22/2022

Friday, the twenty third day of September, 2022

Counsel for Complainant: M/s. N.P.Jayakumar

Counsel for Opposite Party: Mr. D.Paariventhan

On perusal of records in this case, we delivered the following

ORDER

Pronounced by Mr.N.Balu: Member-I

Adopted by Dr.V.Ramaraj: President and Mrs.V.Lavanya: Member-II

Nasreen Jaleel, W/o.Jaleel Ahamed

Latheef Manzel, Plot No.62, 2nd Main Road,

A.I.B.E.A Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai - 600 041                                                   ...                      Complainant

-Vs-

S.P.Rajagiri,

Proprietor: Rudra Constructions,

14, Basement, Rainbow Arcade,

Opp: Holy Angels School, T.Nagar,

Chennai - 600 017                                                  ...                     Opposite Party

1.     The Complainant has filed this case as against the Opposite Party claiming a payment of Rs.1,74,516/- as rent for 17 months and 14 days of delay in completing the construction of her building, Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.1,00,000/- for her mental agony, Rs.75,000/- for failure to provide water connection to her premises and the cost of this case.

The facts of complaint in brief:

2.     The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party (Ex. A-1) on 31.01.2013. As per the terms of the agreement, the complainant agrees to purchase a flat from the O.P measuring 426 sq.ft as detailed in B schedule out of the 7890 sq.ft land detailed in A schedule land comprised in Survey No´s. 58/2A and 58/2B at No.5, Vai.Co Salai, Jaishankar Nagar, Palavakkam, Chennai besides agreeing to construct a Flat in the First Floor of the proposed to be built Apartment (Proposed Flat No.B-1) as detailed in Schedule C of   Ex.A-1 with Car Parking facility in the Parking Area. She paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.10,65,000/- to the Opposite party for sale of the land and the sale deed was registered (Ex.A-2) on 24.01.2013.

3.     As per the terms of the agreement the O.P should have handed over the completed flat within 1 year from the date of agreement (before 01.02.2014). But he handed over the flat on 15.07.2015 with a delay of 17 months and 14 days. As per condition No.VIII of the agreement, in case of delay to hand over the completed flat, the O.P should pay Rs.10,000/- per each month as rent. But the O.P failed to pay any such rent for his delay which amounted to Rs.1,74,516/-.

4.     The O.P received Rs.75,000/- over and above the amount agreed in the agreement for the purpose of providing water connection to her flat but he failed to provide the same before handing over the flat to her. The incomplete and improper drainage work done in the terrace of the apartment, during raining times, rain water enters into the building and drains via stair case. Even after informing about this issue, the O.P never made any attempt to correct or repair the drainage system in the terrace.

5.     The complainant herself engaged some other person to do the repair works in the terrace and to make provision for water connection to her flat. The complainant had failed to provide the same despite receiving additional cost of Rs.75,000/-. The O.P also failed to earmark an exact place in the parking area to park her car in the parking lot. These activities of the O.P have resulted in causing mental agony and mental torture to the complainant.

6.     Hence the complainant sent legal notice on 23.11.2016 for which the O.P did not give any reply. She demands that the Opposite party should pay Rs.1,74,516/- towards rent for the delay in handing over the completed flat, Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in his service, Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony by not providing water connection to her flat despite receiving additional cost and despite various calls which she herself had done later and the cost of this case.

The facts of written version of Opposite Party:

7.     The Opposite party says that the Complainant does not come under the purview of Consumer. The completion certificate to Flat No.B-1 was issued as early as on 16.12.2014 which is well within the period of 1 year from the date of agreement. As the complainant requested stating that she requires one more recently dated completion certificate for the purpose of getting bank loan, the Completion Certificate dated 15.07.2015 was issued to her.

8.     The complainant has been maintaining very amicable relationship with O.P until filing this complaint. She never complained about the delay in handing over the flat nor about the drainage problem of rain water nor about water connection issues and the car parking issue too. She never made any oral, telephonic complaint or complaint in any other manner like by letter or to the police about the deficiency of service of the O.P or about the mental agony caused to her because of the activities of the O.P.

9.     In fact the O.P had earmarked the car parking area to the complainant at the time of handing over the ownership of her flat and from the date of her taking possession of the flat, she is using the same earmarked car parking lot. The complainant paid the cost of the flat in many installments with inordinate delay without adhering to the terms laid down in the agreement. The complainant still owes a balance of Rs.2,00,000/- to the O.P which is payable by her for various charges like E:B deposit charge, Metro Water Deposit charge and some other additional works requested by her and not covered in the agreement.

10.     As the prices of materials had increased abnormally after the date af agreement with the complainant, the O.P could not complete the work at the expected capital and resulted in additional investment. The delayed payment of installments by the complainant resulted in loss to the O.P and he suffered so much to pay the weekly wages to the employees and laborers. Hence the Opposite Party says that the complaint has to be dismissed with cost.

11.  Points to be considered:

1).    Has the Opposite Party committed deficiency in his service as alleged by the complainant? If yes, what is the relief the complainant is entitled to?

2).    Whether compensation can be awarded to the complainant?

3).    What are the other reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

Points 1 and 2:

12.    The complainant has stated in paragraph 7 of the complaint that when the complainant demanded rent for the delayed period of 17 months and 14 days, the O.P had assured that it can be adjusted in the final bill, but he remained inexplicably silent while receiving the final payment. Moreover the O.P did not have the elementary courtesy to attend her phone calls and many times even disconnected her calls.  The O.P claims that the complainant has been maintaining very amicable relationship with O.P until filing this complaint, she never complained to him directly about the delay in handing over the flat nor about the drainage problem of rain water nor about water connection issues and the car parking issue too. She never made any oral, telephonic complaint or complaint in any other manner like either through letter or to the police about the deficiency of service of the O.P or about the mental agony caused to her because of the activities of the O.P. This kind of escapism technique on the side of the O.P is not acceptable as O.P has not proved his points that the complainant never claimed anything earlier.

13.     The O.P has not given any reply to the Legal Notice issued by the complainant. He denies the charges now, but fails to satisfy this commission with necessary evidence that he did not commit any deficiency. He has not stated anything about the charges that he failed to provide proper water connection to the flat and the improper drainage system in the terrace that caused rain water to drain via stair case. The O.P has failed to substantiate his claims that the complained paid each and every installment with inordinate delay and that caused him loss. The point put forth by the O.P that the price hike of building materials has resulted in a heavy loss is not of the concern of this commission. He has to perform his part of the contract despite such price hikes. The O.P claims that he handed over the completed flat to the complainant on 15.12.2014 itself but has failed to prove it. He has not produced any document to prove his statement but has produced the completion certificate (Ex.B-3) dated 15.07.2015 which strengthens the case of the complainant. The O.P has stated that the complainant paid the amount in various installments with inordinate delay and that she still owes to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards various charges but  failed to prove his points with necessary evidence.

14.     Hence this commission finds the Opposite Party guilty as far as the complainant´s demand that the Opposite party has failed to perform his part of point No:VIII of the contract. Even though O.P has made various averments has miserably failed to prove any of his averments. Hence it is concluded that the O.P should pay Rs.1,74,516/- to the complainant as rent for the delay in handing over the completed flat is right and the Opposite Party is held liable for deficiency in his service. Points No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

15.  Point No.3:

      The first and second points reveal that the Opposite Party has been found guilty. He has committed deficiency in his service to the complainant. Hence the question as to whether he has caused mental agony to the complainant and can he be made liable to pay compensation to the complainant is answered as follows. The O.P has caused mental agony and is ordered to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony with delay in handing over the completed flat with a negligent and lethargic attitude.

16.  As result this Commission passes the following ORDER:

a)      the Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,74,516/- to the complainant as rent for the delay in handing over the completed flat.

b)      Rs.25,000/- is awarded as compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant with delay in handing over the completed flat and for the negligent and lethargic activities of the opposite party.

c)     No cost. The parties have to bear their expenses.

       This Order was dictated by me to the steno today the twenty third day September, 2022, was taken notes in short-hand and then typed in computer and corrected by him and was pronounced by us in the open court today.

                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                            Member - I

                                                                                                            Member -II

Exhibits marked by the Complainant:

Exhibits marked by the Opposite Party:

Witness examined by the Complainant: Nasreel Jaleel - (Complainant)

Witness examined by the Opposite Party: S.P.Rajagiri - (Opposite Party)

                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                            Member - I

                                                                                                            Member -II